Hard Teaching

I was thinking about what Jesus said about turning the other cheek, and how that relates to things such as self-defense. My personal opinion up to this point is that if I am attacked alone, I am not to retaliate. If my family is attacked, I am to kick some bu-twa.

I am not sure, if in the spur of the moment if I would actually follow this premeditated decision. If someone came up to me and sucker punched me, my first reaction might be to tackle them and beat their head in. But maybe I would be in a better frame of mind than I give myself credit for.

It reminds me of Jim Elliot and those missionaries who would not shoot at the natives because they knew they were not saved. How does that mesh with my belief, that if someone breaks into my house I will whip out my .38 and put a few holes in them. Is that right? Right now, thats where I am.

Anyway, I happened to look this up on Wikipedia, and the article was well put together, so here is what I found, courtesy of Wikipedia...

Turn the other cheek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Turn the other cheek is a famous phrase taken from the Sermon on the Mount in the Christian New Testament. In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

This passage is viewed as promoting nonresistance, pacifism or nonviolence.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Historical origins
* 2 Interpretations
o 2.1 Nonresistance literal interpretation
o 2.2 Figurative interpretation
o 2.3 Righteous personal conduct interpretation
* 3 Criticism
* 4 See also
* 5 External references

[edit] Historical origins

Some hold that Jesus, while rejecting "eye for an eye," built upon previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Hebrew Bible, "You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your race, but will love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18). See also Expounding of the Law.

It is also thought to be possible that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of the Pharisee Hillel the Elder who is famously quoted as describing the Golden Rule to be an effective summation of the Torah, and also "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" (Pirkei Avot 1:14) In this way, personal dignity is both to be given to your brother and demanded for yourself. (see non literal interpretations below for turn the other cheek as an act of defiance )

An analogous sentiment is spoken by Socrates in his conversation with Crito in 399 BC before his execution in Athens. “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” This moral guides Socrates in his argument to a conclusion that he should not attempt to escape from punishment despite being wrongfully imprisoned. From the Grube translation of Crito found in Plato's Five Dialogues revised by Cooper.

[edit] Interpretations

This phrase, as with much of the Sermon on the Mount, has been subjected to both literal and figurative interpretations. See also Sermon on the Mount#Interpretation.

[edit] Nonresistance literal interpretation

This passage has been interpreted as an injunction of nonviolent resistance, and a teaching that it is wrong to commit violence, even in self-defense or retaliation.

Since this passage calls for total nonviolence, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, it has led some to Christian anarchism, including the notable Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, author of the nonfiction book The Kingdom of God Is Within You.

[edit] Figurative interpretation

Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. [1] They note that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, by handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

"When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God."

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

"Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness."

Promoters of this nonviolent interpretation further argue that the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law: commonly invoked Roman law allowed a Roman soldier to demand that citizens of occupied territories carry the soldier's military gear for one mile, but prohibited the soldier from forcing an individual to go further than one mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. (SOURCE NEEDED) In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law. As a side effect this may also afforded the early followers a longer time to missionary to the soldier and or cause the soldier to not seek Christians to carry his equipment in the future so as to not be bothered with their proselitizing.

[edit] Righteous personal conduct interpretation

There is a third school of thought in regards to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

Some point out that Jesus said "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" from Luke 22:36 and the Old Testament laws regarding killing in self-defense to support this view. However, even Luke 22:36 could have been figurative as in Luke 22:38 the disciples point out that they have two swords among the twelve of them, to which Jesus replies "That is enough." If Jesus meant his statement to be taken literally then twelve swords would have been required, not two.

[edit] Criticism

Many Christians and non-Christians who interpret the passage literally have criticised this teaching as unworkable in practice, and potentially immoral, as it gives rewards in this life to those who commit acts of violence, without countering them with self-defense or acts of justice.

Advocates for nonresistance insist such criticisms of immorality fail to see the potential power of good responding to evil. Advocates also maintain that there are multiple nonviolent techniques to defend one's dignity when confronting violence.